prts-mcp

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions the return format ('词条标题和摘要' meaning entry titles and summaries) which is helpful, but lacks critical details like whether this is a read-only operation, potential rate limits, authentication requirements, or how results are sorted/ranked. For a search tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is extremely concise - a single sentence that states the action, target, and return format with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and doesn't include unnecessary elaboration.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool has an output schema (which should document return values), the description doesn't need to explain return format details. However, for a search tool with 2 parameters and no annotations, the description is minimally adequate - it states what the tool does but lacks behavioral context, usage guidance, and parameter semantics that would make it more complete.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the schema provides no parameter descriptions. The tool description mentions searching but doesn't explain what the 'query' parameter should contain (e.g., keywords, exact titles) or the meaning of 'limit' beyond what's obvious from the name. It adds minimal semantic value beyond what can be inferred from parameter names alone.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the action ('搜索' meaning search) and resource ('PRTS 明日方舟中文维基词条' meaning PRTS Arknights Chinese wiki entries), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'read_prts_page' by focusing on search rather than direct page reading. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from potential search-like siblings that might exist.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention when to choose search_prts over read_prts_page for finding content, nor does it specify prerequisites or constraints. The agent must infer usage from the tool name and description alone.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.